Adam,
Read through for comments...
> Having been watching very quietly for some time, and now that the new
> regime is in place, and many people know my feelings about it, I
> thought I'd add something that auDA should seriously consider to avoid
> FUTURE disputes.
In order for the auDA to know your views you need to make a submission.
<http://auda.org.au/policy/panel-newname-2002/proposals.html>
Also thank you for letting other that do not know you consider you
feelings and suggestions.
> The policy requires "registration of a business name or company"
> correct?
>
> So why not then register domain names the same way.
>
> nsw.au
> vic.au
> qld.au
> etc
>
> Then each BUSINESS name can apply for registration of it's appropriate
> state.au name space which you are GUARANTEED will not be disputed,
> simply because the Business Names Act only provides for use and trade
> of a name IN the state of registration.
>
> That means JOE BLOW registered in Victoria can have joeblow.vic.au and
> not conflict or give rise to a dispute with JOE BLOW in NSW who also
> trades as "JOE BLOW" as he can register as joeblow.nsw.au
This is all well and good but I can see issues that can arise in the fact
that there are differing types of registarions within each state.
Using your example 'JOE BLOW' is a registered business in NSW, also JOE
BLOW is a registered charity in NSW and also a registered association.
Who has the right to the name, why does a business have more propritity
right to use the state name than an charity or even an association?
> Companies - that is those incorporated under Federal law - Corporations
> Law - who have trade rights throughout the Commonwealth of Australia
> can register in com.au which I guess means more "commonwealth.au" more
> than commercial, right?
This would only give companies an unfair advantage in the .com.au space
that directly relates to the .com space. People sometimes mistakenly type
the wrong thing, now for good or bad this does happen and people have
differing options on it. (some take advantage & some try to protect there
interests against the practice)
This would only help companies to secure domains that have high value in
type in value and take this away from the smaller companies who rely on
these domains to bring in business with a minimal cost to the business.
Same question applies here. What gives a company propriety rights over the
name more than a business of the same name?
> This means NET.AU can be returned to it's original intent and purpose -
> that being for network providers to identify their own resources and
> can be of no cost consequence to those who are ISPs operating as such
> and are members of say the TIO. Yes, it forces TIO membership, but
> the TIO isn't constitutionally legal, nor does it abide by
> Corporations law, so membership really doesn't matter. (No, don't
> argue with me, the FC matters of ALI and Viper were fought against the
> ACA, not the TIO. So raising this means you know less than you think
> you thought you did.)
I'm going to show a little ignorance here and ask what is the TIO?
Regardless of that I feel that this sort of change would utterly and
totally confuse the internet public as there is already an established
.net and this is what ,net.au is associated with. Many technology
companies, not just ISP's, use .net.au. Take Hutchinson Communicating for
example use www.orange.net.au for there mobile network. Should they loose
property rights over a domain because they are not an ISP?
From the many registrants and surfers that I know and have dealings with
net means the internet and the domain name simply means that you are on
the net. Not that the site owner runs a network of any sort. I can only
see that education of this would cause more problems than good, it moving
away from the global market and separating our DNS from others around the
globe (Much as the ICANN can seem at times).
> EDU.AU is already operating just fine and with it's correct process,
> GOV.AU is fine as is, and CSIRO.AU is fine as is.
>
Defanittly..
> This would mean the only "competitive" name space - well, there is
> none! Because there is no "registrant" competition, and there is no
> REGISTRY competition.
Sorry but I can't agree, competition keeps us all developing towards
better, cheaper and faster services. No competition would see the end to
this and stagnate the market that everyone has a stake in. Also there
would still be competition to who runs the DNS.
> In fact, what would be even better would be for automatic registration
> of BUSINESS and COMPANY names through the state registration body or
> ASIC. Solving ALL disputes, and problems.
As above this will not stop disputes as people will always find a reason
to have rights over another...
> However, this will never happen in my time as a "stakeholder."
>
> Whilst the greedy corporate (HIH, OneTel, Enron, Worldcom, Ansett owner
> Air New Zealand, and just about every insurance company) wipes
> BILLIONS off their "paper trail values" because they artificially
> inflated the worlds economony, and now they tumble and fall, one at a
> time, but sufficiently enough to have a domino effect, Melbourne IT
> will no doubt have to look for other ways to return profits to
> shareholders as it's demise is on the cards without any question.
>
> Look at Network Solutions. The company we all loved to hate in the
> 90's. But reality was, it worked, so we stuck with it. ICANN was
> created (call it auDA for a localised version) and Network Solutions
> fell through the floor. It was snapped up for a song by Verisign who
> are now finding life just as difficult, but they still have their core
> business which is pretty much proprietary.
>
> So who will purchase MIT as it's shares fall and the next wave of
> Australian Corporate Demise hits our short sighted reality.
>
> All I can say is thank god I retied from IT&T and now work in a
> different industry. Although I'm still a stakeholder in the DNS game,
> mostly because of endless legacy actions and activities, I'm glad I
> don't have to enter the political school yard games that constantly
> abound by those who call themselves professionals.
>
In some way I can see how you feel that being out of this is a blessing,
in other ways the rise and fall of monopolistic companies and structures
will see and pave the way for genuine completion with this market and also
others. It will show the public the problems of the past and help them to
make informed decisions about which direction to go to next... this being
provided that we can remember the past and keep these rises and falls in
perspective.
> I'm sure there is a film in all of those somewhere, or even a TV
> Series. Maybe it will appear next year! Watch for your character to
> appear!
I'm actually surprised that something has not come out already... there
are great (if that's what you call them) stories and situations out there
all over the 'net' that would make a great thriller/action/drama... maybe
after the ICANN reform we won't have to wait that long...
Regards,
Michael-Pappas.
>
>
>
>
> THEIR CLAIM: TO PROTECT THE CHILD
> "SOMETHING ABOUT AJ" A True Australian Story about a Family under
> siege. THE MOST SHOCKING CAPTIVATING TRAILER HAS NOW BEEN RELEASED
> http://somethingaboutaj.inoz.com/
> It's about Child Protection, Vaccination, Intervention, Abduction and
> Hope. Help promote this film, contact your local cinema, tv network and
> media. Buy it on video US$24/AU$26.40 Plus Postage and Handling
> (running time 120 mins)
> PO BOX 174, ROSEVILLE NSW 2069 Phone (02) 8825 6111 Fax (02) 8825
> 6199
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/ Please do not retransmit articles on
> this list without permission of the author, further information at the
> above URL. (329 subscribers.)